I agree that I was wrong on that and that it is not pure religion.
With my post I just wanted to say that it is not only about that you are only a good person if you are heterosexual.
EDIT: but I still want to maintain my claim of marriage being pure religion when talking about Christianity (obviously).
Edited by Rauling on 27-01-2013 00:23
Aquarius wrote:
I don't really consider myself an objector, but as the debate about homosexual marriage takes place in France at the moment, one of the argument that I find rather valuable is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman in order for them to have children.
Seen that way, homosexual marriage doesn't make sense.
The problem is that makes sense if you outlaw the marriage of (1) infertile couples and (2) couples who don't intend to have children. And even the catholic church wouldn't have any of that because they'd lose income.
The way I see it there is no rock solid reason to even have a marriage policy, but the key one seems to be that of giving families assistance in a few areas (tax, ownership of assets/houses ect.). And anyone from infertile couples, gay couples and even single mothers/fathers can raise children. ie: artificial pregnancy, adoption ect..
So if we let two consenting adults get married regardless of their gender and future plans we will cover pretty much all parties interested in raising children. This means that as a by-product a few who don't plan to raise kids will also be allowed to get married, but is that really the end of the world?
I'm not trying to start an argument here, just thought for some reason this point needs to be highlighted briefly.
In Portugal the gay marriage was approved in 2010 and it was one of those few political issues where the main political parties didn't had vote discipline. So parties from right were against (with the exception of 7 deputies from the more moderate party) and left parties that had majority at the time approved it (with 2 female deputies voting against their own party).
The party that now is in power in Portugal (moderate right) at the time proposed calling it just a civil union and not "marriage" while the more leftist parties proposed the adoption of children by gay couples.
There was one argument against from an anthropological point of view, that was if we allow a change on the legal concept of "marriage" by including all the genders, then it legitimate the inclusion of marriages with more than 2 persons involved.
In my opinion, legalizing the gay marriage was more about a way to fight discrimination and since it only involves themselves it should completely be allowed. About the adoption of children i have much more doubts, but it is more about the conditions people can give to the children, but i also understand that what really is important is to integrate the child and make him into good citizens and allow them to have a good life.
About the argument of other practices like polygamy it depends on how society will develop and for now that's just one more homophobic argument meant to refrain gays rights.
I remember a comedy program that satirized on the "calling something else to gay marriage" on the first time the issue was discussed in the parliament and rejected in 2008. Here are some alternatives to gay "marriage":
- "My brothers, we are here together to celebrate the Bobby between these two persons"
- "I have this ring here for you, my love", "Are you asking me in Aloe Vera ?"
- "You are going too fast, take your hand out. I've saving myself for the Piassava! Sex only after the Piassava."
- "How dare you saying that i'm fat ??", "It's true! On our Semaphore day you were in much better shape!"
And then we would have to find a word to say "gay divorce". Maybe mini golf? - "I don't love you anymore, i want the mini-golf!"
Edited by kimiopn on 11-02-2013 23:44
I can't really see an arguement against gay marriage that doesn't automaticly rule out several types of straight marriages either. I also cringe when there's talk of naming it something else rather than "marriage".
I seldom use the frase "In this day and age", but in this case I would. For me saying that homosexuals and lesbians shouldn't get married is the same as saying that colored people shouldn't be allowed to get married.
If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Not my problem. However, I do believe that the government cannot force churches to give gay marriages. It break seperation of church and state, and there are many other ways to get married.
Edit: On the child aspect, there isn't really a way around it. It can damage a kids brain. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying that, but it's the truth. The 1st impression of how the world works is at home early on, and having 2 moms or 2 dads at the age of 2 could mess up developement.
Edit 2: Cactus Jack, you finally decided on a title?
Edited by baseballlover312 on 12-02-2013 02:26
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
baseballlover312 wrote:
Edit: On the child aspect, there isn't really a way around it. It can damage a kids brain. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying that, but it's the truth. The 1st impression of how the world works is at home early on, and having 2 moms or 2 dads at the age of 2 could mess up developement.
I doubt very much that having two parents of the same gender has a negative effect on child development. The notion that the right way to raise a child necessitates a man and a woman suggests that bad development doesn't happen amongst straight couples, which isn't at all the case. It also suggests that there is a right way to raise kids, which is a suspect assumption. Development is more a function of biology (developmental disorders like autism etc) and the quality of parenting. Shitty kids come out of straight marriages all the time. Great kids come out of gay relationships too. Shitty kids come out of single parent households. Great kids come out of single parent households.
On the legality of gay marriage: There was a proposition passed in California banning gay marriage, which was challenged and is to be ruled on in the Supreme Court around June, which would likely set national policy. I am 99% sure the proposition will be found unconstitutional (the 1% is a slight chance that the more conservative justices will take the judicial restraint route in their decision making process). I'd be willing to put money on a unanimous decision striking down the gay marriage ban.
The constitutional challenge is based largely on the 14th amendment which makes all Americans equal under the law. In the US there are legal protections associated with marriage that aren't available to gays who can't get married. That alone seals the deal for me. Gays do not have access to equal rights under the law, therefore a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. There's also the pro-ban argument that says gays have access to civil unions and similar legal statuses, which is also unconstititonal as of Brown v. Board of Education which found that separate is inherently unequal.
Legal benefits are extended to couples who get married. It is at this point that marriage ceases to be a religious issue to me. Take away the legal rights and then it can be a religious issue. With legal protections it is a civil issue above all.
Edit: On the child aspect, there isn't really a way around it. It can damage a kids brain. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying that, but it's the truth. The 1st impression of how the world works is at home early on, and having 2 moms or 2 dads at the age of 2 could mess up developement.
I have a few friends who have been raised in a house with two mothers and they have turned out well balanced, good and caring people. I have many friends who have been raised in a "traditional" household who have ended up with a lot of problems. It does the child no harm what so ever being raised in a gay household, there are no crediable studies that prove this is the case, if a child is raised in a loving, caring and thoughtful household be it by two mothers, fathers, single parent, grandparent, foster care, siblings or a mum and a dad then there is a good chance he or she will end up healthy.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
baseballlover312 wrote:
Edit: On the child aspect, there isn't really a way around it. It can damage a kids brain. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying that, but it's the truth. The 1st impression of how the world works is at home early on, and having 2 moms or 2 dads at the age of 2 could mess up developement.
Just to add on to Levi's excellent post, this was one of the objections that the opponents to gay marriage used in court. All the research that has been done on the topic has proved, pretty convincingly, that kids raised by same sex couples were pretty much no different than ones raised by traditional couples. Which just goes to show its more about the ability of the parents raising the children, rather than other factors such as gender, age, or race.
It's just one of those issues that is going to be a complete non-issue in a few years. The younger generation is far more tolerant of gays and lesbians in general than the past generation. It's simply a matter of time before marriage equality will be considered almost a worldwide right with countries that don't have marriage equality being considered a socially backward state. The more religious countries will pass legislation slower , but its a matter of time and demographics.
So. The pope resigned yesterday. For the first time in more than 700 years. To be honest, I don't care that much for the church and its institutions, but that is still a big deal and I'm very interested in your opinions, especially if you're maybe Catholic yourself.
Benedikt XVI justified his decision with "no longer having the physical and mental stregth to fulfill his duties". A wise decision, then? Or is he fleeing from his responsibilities? What do you think?
I doubt he ever had mental strenght, given the fact he believes this shit and even ruled it.
But yeah, it is a big case that happened only few times in medieval times. But i cant see the difference if there is one clown talking or another (yeah i am heretic and i am proud of it, because i can say what i want about god and i will bet he will not strike me down with his furious powers)
Edit: On the child aspect, there isn't really a way around it. It can damage a kids brain. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying that, but it's the truth. The 1st impression of how the world works is at home early on, and having 2 moms or 2 dads at the age of 2 could mess up developement.
Edit 2: Cactus Jack, you finally decided on a title?
On gay marriage: I strongly dissagree with you on that point, there is absolutely no scientific studies that point in that direction. You put forward a statement and you have to back it up with facts. I wish to see peer-reviewed scientific papers that document the fact that a child raised by two men/women will be damaged in a way.
On the title: Yeah, but I don't like the title, I want something better, something that slips easily of the tongue.
On the pope: It might be illness, it might be him distancing himself from all the scandals. I do feel that the catholic church should have done more when the allegations were put forth.
Perhaps they'll learn this time and not elect a pope thats so old he personally knew Jesus.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
baseballlover312 wrote:
Edit: On the child aspect, there isn't really a way around it. It can damage a kids brain. I know I'll get a lot of hate for saying that, but it's the truth. The 1st impression of how the world works is at home early on, and having 2 moms or 2 dads at the age of 2 could mess up developement.
You're going to need to provide a citation for that, that's a huge claim to make
Here's a hint. You've made a particularly stupid claim:
People will be bullied about anything. The way to stop that is certainly not to neglect diversity in marriage, but make it socially respected. Next stop; bigamy!
baseballlover312 wrote:
What about the fact that they will always be singled out and bullied for it?
You do realise you have no way of backing up such a statement?
It's been statistically proven that obese parents more often then not have obese children. They will also be singled out and bullied, so therefor overweight people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Neither should colored people because they're children also risk being bullied.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"